1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with

I can't tell you how much I don't enjoy writing this. But in the endless history of Juan Pierre hagiography, this piece from Kevin Baxter in the Times deserves special mention.

Baxter writes:

Pierre, who was batting .277 in 73 games before Angels shortstop Erick Aybar accidentally fell on his knee during a play at second, could be back in the big leagues as early as tonight when the Dodgers, a game back in the National League West, play the Washington Nationals in the opener of a 10-game homestand.

Problem No. 1: We'll start with a low-key but fundamental issue. There are several more useful ways to summarize a player's abilities than batting average. It's like starting off by telling us that my kid is a B student at Hits Per At Bat Elementary.

That's more than two weeks ahead of some doctors' estimates -- but not a moment too soon for the Dodgers, who clearly miss Pierre's speed at the top of the lineup.

This is gonna be tough to prove. The Dodgers have a .550 winning percentage and are averaging 4.75 runs per game since Pierre was hurt - both better than they were doing with him. Now, it's possible that the Dodgers would have done still better with Pierre than with his replacements in the lineup, Delwyn Young, Jason Repko and Andruw Jones. But Baxter has set up the question as an issue of who's batting leadoff.

Although Matt Kemp, who has batted first most often in Pierre's absence, has a .393 on-base percentage and a .532 slugging percentage in the leadoff spot -- both far superior to Pierre's .327 and .318 figures -- he has also struck out nearly a third of the time, and only six of his 22 stolen bases have come when he was batting leadoff.

This is the clip they'll show at the awards ceremony. Talk about being committed to an agenda. The construction of the sentence suggests that Kemp's superior on-base and slugging percentages are less important than a) the kind of outs he makes and b) ...

I tell you, b) deserves its own reward. Baxter is actually knocking Kemp down for having a low percentage of his season stolen bases in the leadoff spot. Kemp has batted leadoff in 22.2 percent of his plate appearances. He has stolen 27.2 percent of his bases in the leadoff spot. I mean, Baxter's measuring stick is not only nonsensical, it actually works against him.

As for a) - in general, strikeouts are no worse an out than any other kind of out. Yes, there are times when a flyball or grounder will advance a runner, just as there are times when those might cause a double play. But overall, there's simply no question which is more important: out types or one's OPS.

The crazy part is that there is no spot in the batting order where strikeouts are less of an issue than the leadoff spot. In the first at-bat of the game, there are literally no runners to advance. In most later at-bats, you're batting after the pitcher's spot. It's simply crazy to suggest that strikeouts are a problem for a leadoff hitter.

Oh, and by the way: Kemp and Pierre have both seen 3.8 pitches per plate appearance this season.

Pierre, meanwhile, is the toughest outfielder in the majors to strike out, and his 35 steals still rank second in the league despite the fact he has missed a month.

"He doesn't give us the power threat that Matt gives us. But he knows how to lead off," said Dodgers Manager Joe Torre, who promised Pierre would be at the top of the order when he returns but did not say where he would play him in the team's crowded outfield. "He's going to make the pitcher work hard and be a threat on the bases. He's a good spark plug for us."

And the Dodgers could certainly use a spark plug. Although they are 11-9 without Pierre, the Dodgers have hit .253 -- slightly below their season average -- during that span, scoring two or fewer runs six times.

Again, Baxter relies on an objectively less relevant stat - batting average - to make his argument. Yet the Dodgers' on-base percentage (.327) and slugging percentage (.402) have both been higher in Pierre's absence.

"He's got speed, he's got everything," said Mike Easler, the former Dodgers batting coach and now their minor league hitting instructor. "He can turn a ballgame around." ...

The thing is, Pierre's return to the lineup could help the Dodgers at this point. They have a serious problem in the outfield right now, so serious that even Pierre might help solve it. And yet, Andruw Jones' name doesn't even appear in Baxter's story.

I understand the reality that Pierre will bat leadoff when he returns to the lineup. But is that what journalism is about? Cobbling together flawed evidence to justify a flawed reality?

There's no reason Kemp has to remain the team's leadoff hitter. The .925 OPS and speed has provided there can be an equal or greater asset in the heart of the order. But to suggest that the leadoff spot has been a problem, that the Dodgers are lacking a spark plug, is irresponsible. And it's not like it's even difficult to see. In fact, the only way you can't see it is if you're so determined to advance a storyline that you'll steamroll your way through it, logic or no logic.

Editorially, it makes sense to write about Pierre's imminent return from the disabled list. Analytically, someone needed to challenge the conclusions in this story before it went to print.

Update: After I wrote this piece, I was thinking about it and realizing that if it weren't for this one part - "and only six of his 22 stolen bases have come when he was batting leadoff" - I might not have bothered writing this morning. Without that portion, you're left with comparing Kemp's batting skills to his strikeouts, which is tiresome but nothing particularly unusual to see. There were other problems with the story, but this line about the stolen bases was just so strange and vexing.

Then, when reading the Times sports section in print, I noticed that the online version was actually edited from this: "while stealing only six bases."

In other words, someone in the sports department - Baxter or an editor - actually gave this portion of the article special attention, for good reason, since criticizing Kemp for stealing "only six bases" in 19 games (a pace for 51 in 162 games) would be ludicrous. Yet the edit doesn't solve the problem, it exacerbates it.

Either that, or the online version was the intended version, and the print version had extra words cut for space, yet preserved the silliness of using Kemp's six steals against him. Neither scenario is very consoling.

Although Jon: I'm sorry you consider the time you spent deconstructing this nonsense as a wasted hour of your life. It's a dirty job, but a blogger's got to do it. There are lots of fans out there starved for baseball commentary that isn't breath-takingly stupid. Keep up the good work.

6 But Pierre isn't even good at BA. Unless you compare him to the guy who actually replaced him in the lineup. Not Kemp - he was already in the lineup. It was Jones. And yeah, his BA is worse than Pierre's.

I think the last line in your post describes it best and I would only add,

"In fact, the only way you can't see it is if you're so determined to advance a storyline that you'll steamroll your way through it, logic or no logic."

One of the main themes of of Joe Torre's first year as Dodger Manager was and his belief that Juan Pierre must bat at the top of the order for his team to succeed. Logic be damed!

Matt Kemp while a very talented player who seems to be working very hard at adopting to the changes Torre has tried to implement throughout the year can never satisfy Torre's expectations, batting leadoff or in the middle of the line-up.

No, one of the main themes of the Dodgers' season was the well-founded belief that Rafael Furcal must bat at the top of the order for the team to succeed. Juan Pierre is a substitute. Like Sweet and Low.

I know manager's pronouncements are generally fluff and not meant to be taken too literally. But I really don't know what it means when you say someone "knows how to lead off". I mean, what exact knowledge is involved here? Not batting out of order?

Reading Baxter and Heyman has got me thinking cynically again. I mean, I generally view our media with a skeptical eye, and I try not to take anything at face value unless I see some great research to back it up. The C.C. rumor has popped up in so many places that it makes me think it could be true...but I read it as Ned trying to make a "big" trade for the sake of the trade. However, do reporters like Heyman really believe this would have been a good thing for us, even if it cost us some offensive power from our "prospects' as they say? Or, do they just write this stuff for the masses to sell advertising and to get hits on the website?

There may very well be some dysfunction in the head office at Dodger Stadium, but if we were really trying to move Kemp for C.C., than I am glad Frank stepped in. I would rather look like a team that is hard to deal with, rather than showing we don't know where to place our current value along with our greatest need.

It amazes me how wrong these mainstream journalists are. Plashke was filling in the other day on 570, and was wrong about everything. EVRTHING! Are they being contrarian? Are they just ignorant? Both? Does anyone know?

For the first time in my life, I was moved to write a letter to the sports editor. I saw it before I saw what Jon wrote, so I wasn't nearly so comprehensive.

Why is it that sports reporters love Juan Pierre so much? Why? Does he send them nice presents at Christmas? Does he introduce them to supermodels? The Dodgers have played above .500 at two points this season: Early, when Furcal was batting leadoff and Pierre was a part-timer, and since Pierre's injury. Can't they see that?

Funny thing about JP, he plays the game that he was hired to play, not better not worse. Take a look at his stats, they are no better or worse than when the Dodgers hired him.

On the other hand there's Andruw Jones and the Mendoza line...any bets on if he breaks it this season? What happens for next year when the Dodgers are looking at his big paycheck and low stats...what happens next year?

If even baseball writers, who are actually paid to know and understand the game--cant do it---> are we then expecting too much from the casual fan community to understand why Juan Pierre is bad at baseball?

So Joey, are you saying that Ned C. does not know who to do his job? Ned hired JP to play a role in the Dodgers offense, JP plays the role exactly in the way he was hired to. Not as a power hitter, not a big offense force, a small ball, get on base, steal a base player.

Is your problem with JP or with Ned because he does not know how to build a winning team that has an offense?

I would like to JP used as a situtional left handed pitch hitter. I think he does bring some spark, but not as a starter. Maybe, (crossing my fingers) just maybe, the club can showcase him for another contender, eat some contract, and be rid of him.

1. Asking himself "Who is the fastest player on the team, because I want him to leadoff?", answering to himself "Juan Pierre", and then putting Pierre in the leadoff spot.

What Torre is doing:

1. Asking himself, "Given that Juan Pierre is gonna be in my starting outfield, which lineup position is he best suited for?", answering "Leadoff, because of his speed", and then putting Pierre in the leadoff spot.

The fact that Ned believes he needs a Juan Pierre on the team is the fundamental reason why he should not be the GM. He doesnt possess any analytical skills, doesnt know how runs are created/prevented, etc.

But my point was really about just casual fans. Ned's a product of that environment (ex-PR guy). Until the casual fans become more educated, I think they'll always be a place for a Ned Colletti in major league baseball.

Its just too bad he has to be on the Dodgers ruining them, when he could just as easily be in Baltimore, or San Franciso, Seattle (sorry USS Mariner), Pittsburgh, Cubs, Nationals, Kansas City etc.

Gradually, the old school baseball types are being phased out I think but it wont totally be driven out till the casual fans become more educated, or the entities that are educating them (ESPN, Baseball Tonight, Mainstream Media) becomes more educated.

Its amazing that for instance CNBC, or Fox Business, or Bloomberg--> they have analysts on everyday evaluating the market. And these guys use every type of statistic/indicator available to try to predict what will happen the next day. And generally, investors want this information. They want everything they can get their hands on that will make them more informed.

Why cant that attitude carry over with the casual baseball fan?

In the information age, where more & more is become available, its almost as if Baseball media types dont want access too it or to acknowledge it.

as long as he doesn't take PT away from Kemp and Ethier he makes our team better there's no doubt, and sure i'd rather see him bat 8th or 9th, but i've been told numerous times here that batting order has very little effect on run scoring.

Here, here, Jon. What Jon said, and what everyone said about what Jon said.

(Sorry, I sound lazy but I mean it, and am running late to work.)

The fact, too, is that Pierre replacing Jones will actually be a plus, which none of us thought we'd say. But he should be returning to bat 8th (or 9th), not 1st, end of story. And he should be replacing Jones and not Kemp or Ethier (except to maybe spell the latter once in a blue moon.)

42 It matters that he will bat more often than anyone else in the lineup. The difference between batting say... 2nd and 6th, is fairly negligible. 1st and 8th, when you are one of the worst hitters in the lineup, is a different story.

I'd still rather have Jones in playing over Pierre. In spite of his troubles, Jones still stands to contribute more as a hole than Pierre does.

In most later at-bats, you're batting after the pitcher's spot. It's simply crazy to suggest that strikeouts are a problem for a leadoff hitter.

Actually, no, it's not crazy. Assuming that once every three time the lead off hitter comes up after the pitcher, there is a runner on base, it is highly likely that the pitcher just sacrificed the runner over to second (or if we're real lucky to third). In these spots, once again, the strike out does nothing to advance the offense. This, of course, depends on the number of outs and whathaveyou.

I really think too many around here undervalue the costs of a batter striking out.

However, all things considered, I'd still take Kemp as the lead off man over Pierre. Everyday of the week and twice on Sundays (not that they play Sunday double headers anymore)

The numbers don't Lie.
We 1. Score more runs and 2. Win more games sans Pierre.
Nice guy, fast guy, plays hard, but shouldn't take PT from Kemp or Ethier. If he platoons with Jones that's somewhat acceptable i guess.

Not sure if you meant to be sarcastic here, but that IS a huge dropoff for Pierre (I assume those are OPS+ numbers?).

Not off the cliff like Jones, but still, substantial.

So to answer your (possibly rhetorical?) questions above:

1. Colletti brought Pierre in to be a certain type of player. That was a mistake. That type of player is of very little value, and shouldn't be starting every day, let alone leading the team in PAs (which he did between Jones's injury and his own) and making $45M.

2. Pierre has certainly been the "type" of player expected, but a lower-than-expected quality version of that type. He has been worse than should have been expected, and those expectations were very very low to begin with.

36 - Take away Sweeney and Jones and what will be our OBP? Even including our pitchers!

Also, Is Pierre's speed back up to 100%? If he is less and he is not aggressive when he is on the basepaths, his main asset is neutralized and Baxter's and Torre's argument is basically flushed down the proverbial toilet!

17 - Yes, you are right! That is the real question. Do we end up with 2 black holes in the lineup or just one? Jones and Pierre in the lineup will suck the energy of the rest of the lineup down with them into the vortex of the black hole. If Ethier goes back to being 3.5 and playing just 2-3 games a week again after proving again that he can be a consistent steady hitter as an everyday player, then the Dodgers deserve whatever happens to them. Ethier may not be a spectacular player, but he is a grinder as well, and even when he makes out some times, he has worked the pitcher into 8-12 pitch at bats, plays a good outfield and has a steady line drive swing. Again, he has done nothing to deserve being taken out of the lineup and benched, other than just being undervalued in the eyes of Dodger management.

I'd rather have Young replace Jones. I think, given consistent playing time, that YOung is the best hitter of the three. Jones is the best defender of the three (though if DY plays, he plays LF). Pierre is the best basestealer of the three.

51 JP has a much better chance on OPS'ing .650+ than Andruw, that's just my opinion, but that's what I believe. If JP can even get hot and hit .300+ he could even OPS .700-.725. Even if he hits leadoff it has to better to replace Andruw Jones .447 OPS since returning.

however, I think it is a simple baseball truth that it is easier to score a runner the closer he is to home: No runners on requires a home run; runner on first requires an extra base hit; runner on second requires a base hit; runner on third can score on a fly ball out.

Assuming that once every three time the lead off hitter comes up after the pitcher, there is a runner on base, it is highly likely that the pitcher just sacrificed the runner over to second (or if we're real lucky to third).

But, how much value does a "productive" out have if the out is going to mean that there would be 2 outs regardless?

Having a guy at 2nd base with 2 outs (if the leadoff guy Ks), or having him at 3rd base and 2 outs (if the leadoff guy gets him over to 3b)---> cant be that much more valuable.

Because with 2 outs, batters are running on contact anyway. So most are going to score on any hit to the OF be it from 2nd or 3b.

52 - How many times, relative to the other batting positions in the order, does the leadoff hitter come up with a runner on second or third base and less than two out?

The No. 9 spot in the Dodger batting order has 30 sacrifice hits in 381 plate appearances this season (8 percent). The No. 8 and No. 9 spots in the batting order have a combined 22 doubles and triples in 771 plate appearances this season. Even throwing in the other ways runners could be in scoring position, I'm not sure how you can argue that strikeouts have been a noteworthy issue for the leadoff hitter.

"1. Colletti brought Pierre in to be a certain type of player. That was a mistake. That type of player is of very little value, and shouldn't be starting every day, let alone leading the team in PAs (which he did between Jones's injury and his own) and making $45M."

So Colletti has built a baseball team based on no real offensive power and a pretty good set of arms, well if you don't count Schmidt who if rumors were true was damaged goods when he arrived at the Dodgers. That's the real problem for the Dodgers this year, and last year and probably next year.

Next year take a look at the power lineup for the Dodgers.

Kent probably gone.

Jones hitting below the Mendoza line.

Garcipara...gone probably, even if healthy.

Raffie is a big big question mark and this is his walk year.

Dodgers need a bat, two would be nice, for 2009, plain and simple.

Quick...someone send a note to Manny and tell him about Venice Beach and how well he'd fit with Manny being Manny.

52Assuming that once every three time the lead off hitter comes up after the pitcher, there is a runner on base, it is highly likely that the pitcher just sacrificed the runner over to second (or if we're real lucky to third).

One in three seems way too high. Pitchers don't actually get that many sacrifice opportunities.

And yes, a strikeout is worse than other kinds of outs in some circumstances. Better than others (DPs). But the more important consideration is WHETHER a batter creates an out. Higher OBP matters more.

Oh, and since we're giving credit to players who make contact because their outs may be productive, consider this: Pierre almost never hits fly balls deep enough to advance runners. His popups are no better than strikeouts. And many of his SBs are after FCs - he vultures the spot on base that someone else earned, because his groundouts are also no better than strikeouts.

So what you'd have to do to make a case that Pierre is a better leadoff hitter than Kemp is to figure out how many more of his (much greater number of) outs actually were "productive" (relative to Kemp's non-K outs), and compare that to the differences in OBP and (let's not forget) SLG. I haven't run the numbers, but I can predict what they'd show.

75 I was thinking that too, though, even though I don't fully buy into the idea of needing speed atop the order, wouldn't his being quite slow at least ruin his chances of being put there. And he's certainly not going to steal bases. Even if it's a good idea it'll never happen.

63Would it be wrong to point out that Delwyn's been a worse hitter than Pierre this year?

It's rarely wrong to point out the truth. My point, admittedly speculative, was that given consistent playing time, that would no longer be true. I can't know that that is correct - but I think it would be. What are Young's MLEs from his minor league stats, compared to Pierre's numbers?

79 regfairfield has made the point that steals/speed are most valuable at the bottom of the order. Why do you need to steal 2nd base if the guy behind you is about to hit a home run? You're more likely to play small ball and manufacture runs at the bottom of the order around the pitcher's spot anyway.

76 - I meant that once every three times the lead off hitter comes up, there is a runner on base. That doesn't necessarily mean the pitcher sacrificed, or that it was even the pitcher to begin with (pinch hitter), just that from plate appearances 2-4, there should be at least once when there are runners on for the lead off man.

Also, don't take what I've been saying as a defense of Pierre. I agree entirely that he isn't even good at getting productive outs, such as the FC you point to.

I'm really talking from a more philosophical position here than I am from the facts on the ground, with this particular team and this particular line up.

Thats because he's not getting regular starts. The big argument for LaRoche is that he needed at bats to show his worth, the same argument can be used for Young. Young's problem is that there's two guys blocking him with huge contacts instead of a fellow rookie (who admit ally has Torre's back).

We could solve all of our problems if we just have Andruw Jones leading off. He'll get more at bats to figure out his swing, it'll show Torre has confidence in Andruw, and it'll make the rest of us fly into a murderous rage. That or cheer for that elusive six strike out game that we all so desperately need.

I agree with Delwyn not being as bad as he's shown, but it's not like we're going to get way better if he starts. Delwyn Young is a lot like Matt Murton, he's a nice guy to have on your bench but if he's starting your team probably has some serious falaws.

Do you actually expect the Dodgers to trade or even rent players to make a big push to win the West?

I see no indication that Parking Lot Frank needs to win and win big this year, or even next to force the Dodgers into getting aggressive in the trade market. Nope the song on Parking Lot Frank's lips is "Kids are Alright"...at least for now.

95 - I don't expect a huge trade, no, possibly something smaller from what I've heard. But when the deadline passes, without anything horribly stupid happening, I think most of us will breathe a sigh of relief, yah?

Mo Bats...Dodgers have had little offense this year and no signs of an offense showing up.

Going for a big Bat now shows me that Ned is trying to make a run to win the West this year, even if it means giving up one of the kids. Anything else is more of the same old Ned muddle of a mess based on "Hope and Change" astride a Unicorn.

I know a lot of people have been laid off and upset over the decline of The LA Times, but articles like the Baxter one are why I would not be bothered to pay for the Times anymore. The thing that really got to me was the convenient use of BA where necessary. I mean, that's just insulting to the readers. I'm sure a baseball writer in any kind of medium understands the limitations of BA. To use it to conveniently keep making a thin and flimsy argument is basically telling your readers that they are stupid and won't see through what he is writing about. Arghh!! I could go on but what's the point.

By the way Jon, great catch on the Easler quote.. "he's got everything". Indeed! And for Torre to throw out the "he knows how to lead off" line. Isn't that like saying his skills are craptastic? Like, "you're gonna love this girl I want to set you up with, she's not as good looking as Norbit's wife, but she's got a great personality".

Are other MLB teams as regularly misinterpreted as the Dodgers? I don't understand the totemic power that Pierre has over the press and over Torre and over half the fan base. Seriously, it's like the guy is a master hypnotist.

Still, he'd be an improvement over Jones--if Torre would have the brains to bat him 8th.

"L.A. Times staff writer Kevin Baxter has spent the past two decades covering sports and Hispanic arts and culture. Co-author of the 2004 book "Miracle Over Miami: How the 2003 Marlins Shocked the World," he has reported from throughout Latin America for several publications including The Sporting News, The Nation, Baseball America and La Opinion. Prior to rejoining the Times, he worked for the Miami Herald."

Ahhh who was on the 2003 Marlins? Look for additional glowing reportage on Big Brad.

107
You are overestimating the level of the reader of the LA Times sports page. The people who read the LA Times sports page are the same people who go to the stadium. If you think the majority of people at the stadium don't think BA is still very important you have never spent any time talking to the average fan who inhabits the ballpark.

It is still a terrible article but hardly anyone who reads the article will recognize it as such. The idea that baseball fans are an enlightened bunch seems far fetched.

the times sports page, in the last 10 to 12 years has become almost unreadable. They try & push whatever agenda they have. They did/do the same thing whenever they mention Depo's tenure as GM. Somewhere Allen Malamud is rolling over in his grave

would anybody here trade Matt Kemp for Robinson Cano? Heyman's article seems to lend to the rumor that Logan White shoots down many of Ned's trades. Good bless Logan White, as Clayton Kershaw might already be in Tampa Bay

Nationals' starter John Lannan has never faced the Dodgers. I believe he was quoted as saying, "In my life I've never pitched at Dodger Stadium. I'm so excited, I called my mother. How do you sleep before a game like this? I'm glad I will get to pitch there, so I don't have to look back when I'm 64 and lament never pitching there. I would have been one jealous guy, and no woman would want to grow old with me." Before tonight, he has had to imagine what it's like to face them.

Asked where he would rather pitch than Dodger Stadium, Lannan replied, "Nowhere, man."

Although not in the field of medicine, Lannan was asked to comment on injured Nationals' OF Wily Mo Peña, whom Lannan described as "Crippled inside." Lannan is confident the outfielder will return, noting that with Peña's help, the club to come together next season.

While some Dodgers people think Kemp still has some maturing to do, until further notice, I remain doubtful the Dodgers could execute a small deal, much less something that big.

How do these clauses fit together? The Dodgers' ability to execute a deal depends on Kemp's achieving maturity? Is he implying Kemp is in charge of trades? Or does Kemp's maturing process merely effect Heyman's consciousness of doubt?

If he had just written "I doubt the Dodgers can execute any deal," he would have been clearer and saved 22 words.

But lack of syntactical skill is probably to be expected from a writer who propounds the the bizarre notion that the Dodgers can only prove their front office's functionality by trading Kemp, their best or second-best hitter.

John Lannan:
In his debut, behind 3-2 with one out in the fifth inning, Lannan hit Chase Utley with a fastball (breaking Utley's hand) and then hit Ryan Howard on the next pitch, whereupon umpire Hunter Wendelstedt immediately ejected Lannan from the game; Lannan was the first Major Leaguer in a decade to be tossed from his debut.

The best things are: a) Getting CC and the others would certainly help, but this is not considering who they would've lost to get him/them. Two steps forward, two steps back. And b) They can sign CC in the off season and then who cares?

145 I'm a Virginia Tech grad/fan. For years, sportswriters have hammered Coach Frank Beamer for his usually soft out-of-conference schedule (not next year, but that's another story). Big marquee matchups are great for fans, networks, and sportswriters, but not so great if you need to go 12-0 to make the National Championship. The same deal operates here. Rosenthal, Heyman, et al aren't interested in what's best for the Dodgers. They need storylines, and in baseball, big trades are equivalent to the Hokies playing LSU. And as with Coach Beamer, they get mad when no one delivers. Read enough Rosenthal and you see that he's just furious that the Dodgers won't swing a big deal--because big deals are what gets people to click on his column.

For reporting that yesterday the Pirates wanted Kemp, Billingsley, and another prospect for Wilson this is actually one of the more sensible resposes I've seen regarding the Dodgers;

Gerry Upland Ca: What do the Dodgers have to do to pass the D-backs in the West....Trade for a Bat or a Pitcher? any chance we can get Tex from Atl?

Jayson Stark: I get the sense the Dodgers are more focused on a bat than an arm, even a bullpen arm. Their problem is that they have no place to put that bat except third base or short. So outside of Casey Blake or maybe Blalock, there isn't much to choose from. The Braves would love to deal them Teixeira for James Loney. But I see just about zero chance of that one happening. The Dodgers still like Loney too much, and they'd have him for four more years.

41. Gradually, the old school baseball types are being phased out I think but it wont totally be driven out till the casual fans become more educated, or the entities that are educating them (ESPN, Baseball Tonight, Mainstream Media) becomes more educated.

You actually think the 'new' breed of GM are better than the 'old' baseball types like Branch Rickey, who considered OBP the most important hitting stat, or Buzzy Bavasi or Al Campanis? There isn't a GM around that I wouldn't trade for one of those 3. It's not a new vs. old argument. The fact is that deN has no idea what he's looking at if/when he looks at any research on a player so he can have all the info in the world his analysis is just wrong if he can evaluate it at all.

I'm new to this site, but does anyone here think there's a trade the Dodgers can make that will make them better then the Cubs, Mets, Phillies, or Brewers?

And if not, what's the point of trading right now?

We have major, major needs both this year and next, at 2B, SS, and possibly 3B and P.

I don't want to just make the playoffs, and go out with a whimper like we have so many times since 1988. I want to win the series, and that's a 2-3 year project that only works by holding on to our young talent.

The only confounding issue is that the free-agent market looks a little dry next year.

159. It's kind of apples and oranges. While it might be true that Rickey et al. were better at player evaluation than most of the current bozos, the current bozos are operating in a much more complex environment. Free agency, a worldwide talent pool, 30 MLB teams, luxury tax, and, for better or worse, a 24-hour, internet-fueled news cycle.

I'm not saying that Branch Rickey couldn't have handled it all with aplomb - I'm saying we don't and can't know.

I think finding the perfect GM is sort of like finding an Ace pitcher who can also hit. The reason most pitchers can't hit is that very few people can hit, and very few people can pitch, and the overlap of those set is teeny.

A modern GM has to be good at more things than was true 50-70 years ago. The number of people who are good at all of them is vanishingly small. Billy Beane is in an exclusive club. The only exceptions to the "has to be" that I can think of are guys whose owners give them carte blanche, or nearly so. We don't actually know if Brian Cashman is a good GM - he's allowed to make lots of expensive mistakes.

169
Rickey was in some ways like Beane in that he was able to exploit market inefficiencies in order to parlay his small budget into making his team a contender.

When Rickey took over the Cardinals, the team was horrible. It hadn't contended at all in the 20th Century.

Rickey started off by finding very good scouts who were able to find some hidden gems. But then teams like the Giants caught on to what he was doing, so they would just shadows his scouts and then just offer the player more money to sign.

So Rickey then decided to go and create the farm system and just go with a plan to sign a whole bunch of cheap players and control them indefinitely and train them the way he wanted them. He didn't have to worry about signing bonuses then. And with no antitrust laws or even rules against owning multiples team in one league, the Cardinals were able to control around 600 players at a time.

Dodger Scouting Guru Logan White reports that they have signed #11 selection LHP Nathan Eovaldi from Alvin high school in Texas. "I'm excited we signed Eovaldi," he told us. "He has a quality arm. We have had him up to 96 [on the gun,]".

That gives them 14 of their first 15 picks and 15 of 18.

White also mentioned that they would not sign #10 - RHP Chris Joyce out of Dos Pueblos high school, Goleta, CA. He had mentioned earlier that he was skeptical about signing either of the two high school youngsters.

On the International front, White signed RHP Yohanse Morillo from the Dominican Republic. White reported he is very is projectable and loose with a 86-90 with a fair breaking ball. "His arm action and delivery is pretty good for a young kid" he said.

being a GM is a lot like running any big organization. it comes down to trusting the people around you enough to delegate responsibilities and giving a good press conference. set a policy and trust the baseball people to make baseball decisions based on said policy. if they don't, fire them and hire someone who will make decisions based on said policy.

166 "After Rickey left the Dodgers in 1950, he didn't fare so well. Somehow the 1964 Cardinals won the World Series despite Rickey's best attempts to ruin the team and front office. "

What would Rickey have had to do with the 1964 Cardinals? He left the Cardinals in 1942, to come to Brooklyn. When he left the Dodgers in 1950, he became GM of the Pittsburgh Pirates. Then he died, in 1955. (Agreed, the Pirates didn't seem to do too well, though they had recovered well enough by 1960 to win the WS.)

By 1964, how do you think that his years at the Cardinals from 1920-42 would be relevant? The Cardinals had already won the WS in 1942, Rickey's last year, 1944, and 1946. What's 1964 got to do with him at all? I'm just not following.

In 1964, August Busch hired Rickey to be a "special advisor." Rickey spent much of the time second-guessing GM Bing Devine, who was actually doing a great job of assembling talent for the team.

However, in August, the Cardinals were still trailing the Phillies and Rickey pretty much told Busch that Devine had to go. So Devine was fired and replaced by Rickey disciple Bob Howsam. Cardinals manager Johnny Keane was so ticked off by the firing of Devine that he decided to quit at the end of the season.

The Sporting News ended up naming Divine Executive of the Year for 1964 despite his firing.

Branch Rickey died in 1965, not 1955. He died one day before I was born.

172 I had a feeling about Joyce; have a friend of a friend of a friend connection to their family and sounded like he was pretty close to definite on wanting to go to college. He'll probably develop into a great pitcher in college in a couple of years.

Branch Rickey, albeit dead, would still be a better GM than many teams have. Had McCourt hired the dead Rickey instead of the living Colletti, for example, Pierre, Sweeney, and Schmidt would be Giants, Jones would be somebody else's bust, and I never would have noticed Gary Bennett. Of course we wouldn't have Ethier, but Bradley is playing pretty well. No, I submit the LA would in fact have a better record with Dead Hall of Famer in charge.

190 - when was the last time that owners traded teams? not that i'd have a problem with Mark Cuban owning the Dodgers. I'd also like him to own the Chargers and move them to the LA area. but babysteps.

In Diamond Leung's posting last night about Matt Kemp, he included this, "...the 6-foot-2, 230-pound former basketball player nicknamed "Bison" has got talent." Has this DT nickname been picked up by the mass media now? Given this much DT influence, maybe we could get "Eighth Batter" adopted for Juan Pierre.

218
Well I can tell you my experience in SB at least. All of a sudden when the Chargers became good, all the bars in downtown SB suddenly became Charger bars and put Charger stuff up everywhere. Drove me nuts.

220 - That could very well happen. Jacksonville is an abandoned city waiting to happen, and I've heard horrible things about their owner (who insists he's not moving them but apparently is asking around anyway, according to some other owners). So it's a definite possibility. Any league that has a team in a tiny market like Jax and no team in the 2nd largest market is really screwing themselves over. But it would be too bad for LA to get a franchise owned by such a jerk. Not that they haven't had that before..

Given that JP will be activated any minute now, who will lose their spot? Is Berroa gone, or will they send Troncoso down now that they've escaped Denver?

FWIW, once Pierre is back I see Ethier to the bench. He seems to be the odd man out, especially with stories of Jones starting to have quality at bats. If Jones does turn it around great - we'll still be faced with Pierre over Ethier though. No matter what Pierre does, within reason, Torre wil continue to trot him out there.

I haven't seen Mark Sweeney mentioned lately, but what do we do with him? Can't they see there is really no place for him on this team as long as Young and LaRoche are around?

I was at the game last night where the "incident" occurred. I just want to say that I hope that the umpires get reprimanded along with all the players involved. The umps should have had better control of this situation. Of course this is A Ball and I try to remember that.

I have had the pleasure of watching Homer Bailey, Adam Dunn, Austin Kearns, etc. play in Dayton as a Dragon. It is always fun to see players make it to the Reds from Dayton.

However, I will have to admit I am not as excited to see any of this crew make it. Of course this is really unfair to them b/c in my opinion this situation was one that could have been avoided by all sides (and I mean all three parties involved). I think I have lost a little of the fun involved in minor league baseball.

184 Ooops, well that explains that then. Somehow (reading too fast) I conflated his retiring from the Pirates in 1955 with his dying in 1965. (There wasn't anything in between in the mini-bio I was reading.) I'd actually been wondering if maybe you meant 1946 rather than 1964, except the Cardinals won the WS in '46 so that didn't make sense either. Do the Cardinals one year before you were born have more weight for you than all those earlier Cardinals and Dodgers teams? (And even the Pirates seemed to pick up.)

Jonathan Broxton's got nothing on Orlando Pace. He is the largest gentleman I have ever seen.
Also, people are freaking out about Stephen Jackson's no-show. Fans are asking me if I know what is going on, as if I've been invested in the Rams for more than five minutes. People are upset!! Drama already!! Where is RamsThoughts when I need it?

I can't believe there are people in LA/OC who are still fans of the Raiders and Rams. They moved! They stabbed you in the back! And in the face, heart, lungs, and throat! They're somebody else's team now. You're a free agent fan, pick another team.

Heh. I still have a friend of mine since childhood, a Raiders fan, who will still say "Rob Lytle fumbled" in that controversial play in the 1977 AFC championship game even though we were both only 6 and 7!

261 - No RamThoughts, but there's a mailing list called Rampagers. BTW for the Rams fans in here, if you're looking for a place to watch games, shoot me an email to my gmail acct under the same handle. I've been watching the games with pretty much the same group of people since I turned 21..

262 - I look at it like this. Say you had a nasty divorce and your wife got full custody of the children and took them away, are you going to stop loving your kids? That's how I view the Rams. The name and logo are the kids and you know who is the * that took them away.

I just heard Jim Bowden on the radio - this man should walk around with a warning around his neck stating how dumb he is. He is going along nicely, surprising me with how it makes more sense to get Tex as a rental and how it doesn't make sense for the Dodgers. SO far so good... until Mason/Ireland ("MI") asked him what he thought about baseball in Olympics and if we should have baseball in Olympics and if ML players should go.

I almost fell out of my car when I heard his response. In the history of the world I have not heard so much stupidity. First he said, yes, baseball should be played everywhere as much as possible and it should be part of the Olympics. OK, fine, now, should MLers be part of it. He said yes, but they can't disturb the ML schedule, so they should play in November. Now, MI started laughing.. audibly and pointedly. They asked him if the whole SUMMER Olympics should be moved to November. And Bowden dropped this gem on them... No, they should play the Olympics and work out with the IOC to let the baseball event be held in November. This, of course, made MI laugh even louder.

I can't imagine what Bowden was thinking. Is he really that stupid? I thought he just played stupid on TV.

308
I like college football's OT system. A random event (coin flip) isn't the major determinant in the outcome, and both sides are essentially playing the same game as before. I can see an argument for starting each OT drive at the 40 or 50 though.

309 - Sudden death determined on a coin flip is not the best answer either. Perhaps allowing the other team to better or match would be the best system. And keep going until a winner is determined. Sort of a combination between the two.

That reminds me of the Burbank softball league. Extra inning game is decided by choosing 3 batters per side, each batter gets to hit, and it is the total number of bases per team that decides the winner.